Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
s AddThi
Labels Popular
Drama Literary
Longinu
Essayists sublime
sources
History
“The Ha
LINGUISTICS Girish K
Charact
LITERARY CRITICISM
Charact
Machiavelli “The Ve
”- R.K. N
MAHATMA GANDHI
Lakshm
Novel
“The Ha
Poetry Girish K
Charact
RAVINDRANATH TAGORE
The Lot
Salman Rushdie
Literary
Sudraka Kinds of
I.A. Rich
VED VYAS Wednesday, May 15, 2013 1979)
4 0 3 9 6 7 Both Eliot and Johnson agree that a text should posses a certain consciousness. For Eliot that consciousness is of the literary
tradition, of the text of human experience. As Johnson demonstrates through Thoreau, text can not help but be conscious of
its own limited imitative capacity. Eliot believes that if a poet depersonalizes a text enough, than it can really accomplish an
expression of deep emotion or thought. Johnson sees the medium of literature as an obstacle to actual representation, but
Home that ambiguity enhances the text to the extent that it "delights and baffles" (CMS 655).
Aristotle's idea now takes on greater depth given these new perspectives. He phrases it as an "instinct towards imitation"
SEND FEEDBACK because this impulse toward to creation is practically unconscious. As thoughtful beings, humans are driven to pursue this
creative instinct. It is as innate an instinct for survival as the need for food and shelter. Therefore we pursue this impulse
pdf Material
toward imitation almost without caring if we imitate successfully. We are acting within our given boundaries and limitations.
Poets According to Johnson, that is what gives literature its richness. Eliot believes the poet can transcend those limitations.
Everyone agrees that one must act on the creative instinct.
SYLLABUS
2. Aristotle on Tragedy
Linguistics
The Nature of Tragedy: In the century after Sophocles, the philosopher Aristotle analyzed tragedy. His definition: Tragedy
Literary Criticism then, is an imitation of an action that is serious, complete, and of a certain magnitude; in language embellished with each kind
of artistic ornament, the several kinds being found in separate parts of the play; in the form of action, not of narrative; through
Dramatists pity and fear effecting the proper purgation of these emotions.
Aristotle identified six basic elements: (1) plot; (2) character; (3) diction (the choice of style, imagery, etc.); (4) thought (the
Essayists character's thoughts and the author's meaning); (5) spectacle (all the visual effects; Aristotle considered this to be the least
important element); (6) song.
Novelists
According to Aristotle, the central character of a tragedy must not be so virtuous that instead of feeling pity or fear at his or her
English Grammar downfall, we are simply outraged. Also the character cannot be so evil that for the sake of justice we desire his or her
misfortune. Instead, best is someone"who is neither outstanding in virtue and righteousness; nor is it through badness or
Phonetics villainy of his own that he falls into misfortune, but rather through some flaw [hamartia]". The character should be famous or
prosperous, like Oedipus or Medea.
INDEX What Aristotle meant by hamartia cannot be established. In each play we read you should particularly consider the following
possibilities. (1) A hamartia may be simply an intellectual mistake or an error in judgement. For example when a character has
the facts wrong or doesn't know when to stop trying to get dangerous information. (2) Hamartia may be a moral weakness,
especially hubris, as when a character is moral in every way except for being prideful enough to insult a god. (Of course you
are free to decide that the tragic hero of any play, ancient or modern, does not have a hamartia at all). The terms hamartia and
hubris should become basic tools of your critical apparatus.
The Concept of Tragedy: The word tragedy can be applied to a genre of literature. It can mean 'any serious and dignified
drama that describes a conflict between the hero (protagonist) and a superior force (destiny, chance, society, god) and
reaches a sorrowful conclusion that arouses pity or fear in the audience.' From this genre comes the concept of tragedy, a
concept which is based on the possibility that a person may be destroyed precisely because of attempting to be good and is
much better than most people, but not perfect. (Irony, therefore, is essential and it is not surprising that dramatic irony, which
can so neatly emphasize irony, is common in tragedies.) Tragedy implies a conflict between human goodness and reality.
Many scholars feel that if God rewards goodness either on earth or in heaven there can be no tragedy. If in the end each
person gets what he or she deserves, tragedy is impossible. Tragedy assumes that this universe is rotten or askew. Christians
believe that God is good and just, hence, for certain scholars tragedy is logically impossible. Of course a possible variation of
the tragic concept would allow a character to have a fault which leads to consequences far more dire than he deserves. But
tragic literature is not intended to make people sad. It may arouse pity and fear for the suffering protagonist, or for all
humanity, especially ourselves. But usually it also is intended to inspire admiration for the central character, and by analogy for
all mankind. In the tragic hero's fall there is the glory in his or her misfortune; there is the joy which only virtue can supply.
Floods, automobile accidents, children's deaths, though terribly pathetic can never be tragic in the dramatic sense because
they do not occur as a result of an individual man's grandeur and virtue. After reading each book in the course, be sure you
know whether it presents a tragic view of life. (Incidentally, although some plays we read are certainly tragic in all scholars'
opinions, many Greek plays produced as tragedies are not tragic by anyone's definition, including Aristotles'.)
Aristotle's Poetics: Basic Concepts You should be aware of the following concepts and opinions of Aristotle's which have
tremendously influenced drama in the Western World.
a. Tragedies should not be episodic. That is, the episodes in the plot must have a clearly probable or inevitable connection
with each other. This connection is best when it is believable but unexpected. b. Complex plots are better than simple plots.
Complex plots have recognitions and reversals. A recognition is a change from ignorance to knowledge, especially when the
new knowledge identifies some unknown relative or dear one whom the hero should cherish but was about to harm or has just
harmed. 'Recognition' (anagnorisis) is now commonly applied to any self-knowledge the hero gains as well as to insight to the
whole nature or condition of mankind, provided that that knowledge is associated, as Aristotle said it should be, with the hero's
'reversal of fortune' (Greek: peripeteia). A reversal is a change of a situation to its opposite. Consider Oedipus at the
beginning and end of Oedipus the King. Also consider in that play how a man comes to free Oedipus of his fear about his
mother, but actually does the opposite. Recognitions are also supposed to be clearly connected with all the rest of the action
of the plot. c. Suffering (some fatal or painful action) is also to be included in a tragic plot which, preferably, should end
unhappily. d. The pity and fear which a tragedy evokes, should come from the events, the action, not from the mere sight of
something on stage. e. Catharsis ('purification' or 'purgation') of pity and fear was a part of Aristotle's definition of tragedy. The
meaning of this phrase is extremely debatable. Among the many interpretations possible, consider how well the following
apply to our plays:
1) Purification of the audience's feelings of pity and fear so that in real life we understand better whether we should feel them.
2) Purgation of our pity and fear so that we can face life with less of these emotions or more control over them. 3) Purification
of the events of the plot, so that the central character's errors or transgressions become 'cleansed' by his or her recognitions
and suffering.
Before we look at the distinctive features of the complex plot, it would perhaps be instructive to examine those features which
it shares with the simple plot. The unity of structure recommended by Aristotle includes the tripartite division of the plot into the
beginning, the middle and the end, as well as the unities of time and action. He stresses unified action, where all action in the
plot carries a definite link to other actions, and subsequent actions are the necessary and probable outcomes of the former.
Necessary and probable are terms which recur throughout the Poetics. They stand for the universality of poetry in that they
point to how or what actions should logically be in a given situation. Unity of action, therefore, does not mean all that happens
to the protagonist, but precisely what comprises a particular whole action according to the norms of necessity and probability.
Unity of time, in contrast to its neo-classical applications, here simply means the time span in which the tragic action can be
best comprehended by the audience, given the constraints of human memory, and the wholeness of the action.
Finally, we come to the change of fortune. It is either from good to bad or the reverse. The former is more characteristic of
tragedy but in a later section Aristotle complicates the idea by saying that those plots where the catastrophe is averted by
recognition are best. The change of fortune is also accompanied by a complication of events [desis] and their resolution
[lusis].
Having briefly examined the common aspects of both kinds of plot, we can now look at the special attributes of the complex
plot.
Let us take another look at Aristotle's celebrated definition of complex action: 'A complex action is one where the change is
accompanied by such reversal or recognition or both.' Peripeteia has been defined as a reversal of the action. If, however, it is
just that, then how is it different from the change of fortune? Clearly this is too limited a definition of peripeteia and it would
perhaps be pertinent to consider two other definitions. Humphrey House [2] defines it as a 'reversal of intention'. This definition
takes into account the 'thought' or the dianoia exercised by the character. House describes it as 'holding the wrong end of the
stick'. Peripeteia is therefore the turning of the stick thinking that it is the right end. The ignorance behind any peripeteia is not
mere ignorance. It is the ignorance arising out of error. The other definition is more recent. Frank Kermode [3] defines it as a
'disconfirmation followed by a consonance; the interest of having our expectations falsified is obviously related to our wish to
reach discovery by an unexpected route. It has nothing to do with our reluctance to get there at all. So that in assimilating the
peripeteia we are enacting that readjustment of our expectations in regard to an end'. This points out the pleasure we receive
from peripeteia which is quite different from the straightforward following of a narrative to its end, or in other words, mere
change of fortune.
Having defined peripeteia and identified its characteristic pleasure, we must also consider what this pleasure actually consists
of. This is the element of surprise or wonder [Gk. Thaumaston]. The source of wonder is often the tragic recognition or
anagnorisis. Recognition has been variously defined. In Aristotle it is the recognition of persons through tokens, artistic
contrivances, memory, reasoning (including false inferences) and lastly, arising out of the events themselves (as in Oedipus
Rex). Aristotle defines this anagnorisis as a change from ignorance to knowledge. In terms of Humphrey House's analogy, it
would mean the realization that you have got hold of the wrong end of the stick. House himself defines recognition thus, 'The
discovery of the truth of the matter is the ghastly wakening from the state of the ignorance which is the very essence of
hamartia.' Other scholars define it variously as 'a way in which the emotional potential . . . can be brought to its highest
voltage, so to speak at the moment of discharge', or, 'recognition brings its illumination, which can shed retrospective light'.
Aristotle likes best the recognition which arises out of the events themselves, as in Sophocles's Oedipus Rex. The whole play
is a step by step unravelling of Oedipus's true identity and Oedipus's holding the wrong end of the stick, as it were, in trying to
discover his identity without knowing that the results will be catastrophic. At second best, he places those tragedies where
reasoning effects the recognition. Together with these definitions, we could compare the slightly different angle from which
Terence Cave [4] views recognition. For him it is a stumbling block to belief which disturbs the decorum. From this comparison
we realize the complicated nature of recognition. In the unravelling of the complex plot the point of the recognition is very
different from that possible in a simple plot. The combination of peripeteia and recognition does not merely affect the
characters in the tragedy. They can also extend to the audience or the reader. The unexpectedness of the tragic catastrophe
which the complex plot brings [the element of wonder or thaumaston] heightens our feelings of pity and fear as well as other
related emotions.
Here it would be useful to look at another famous assertion of Aristotle's. In Ch XIV of thePoetics he says, 'the pleasure which
the poet should afford is that which comes from pity and fear through imitation' [5]. Perhaps an examination of pity and fear
together with imitation can give us a better idea of the pleasures incidental to tragedy. Let us start with an appraisal of pity and
fear. Pity and fear are man's sympathy for the good part of mankind in the bad part of their experiences. Pity is evoked when
there is a discrepancy between the agent and Fate, and fear when there is a likeness between the agent and us. Stephen
Dedalus defines Pity and Fear in James Joyce's A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. He calls pity the feeling which arrests
the mind in the presence of whatsoever is grave and constant in human-sufferings and unites it with the human sufferer.
Terror, or fear, is that which unites it with the secret cause. [6].
Aristotle himself gives similar definitions of these terms in his Rhetoric [books V and II]. There he defines them as a species of
pain. It is here that we can begin to consider the idea that tragic pleasure derives from the purgation of these emotions. The
idea of purgation as a medical metaphor has been in vogue for a long time and can be substantiated by examples from
Aristotle's Problems [problem XXX] where coldness of black bile accompanies 'despair and fear' and heat is the suggested
cure which restores the temperature to a temperate mean. Aristotle, unlike his teacher Plato, says that the emotions are good
in themselves. Therefore there should be no need to purge the feelings of pity and fear. Instead, a more sensible definition of
tragic pleasure would be that concomitant with the proper feeling of these emotions. By proper I mean a temperate attitude to
these emotions as Aristotle teaches in his Nichomachean Ethics. In Book II of his Ethics, he says:
fear and confidence and appetite and anger and pity and in general pleasure and pain may be felt both too much and too little,
and in both cases not well; but to feel them at the right times, with reference to the right objects, towards the right people, with
the right motive, and in the right way, is what is both intermediate and best, and this is characteristic of virtue. [7]
Aristotle's idea of the mean is derived from the Pythagoreans who applied it to music. Here we may note that another place
where Aristotle uses the term catharsis is in his Politics and in the context of giving 'relief to overcharged feeling' through
music. Interestingly, here too, he mentions pity and fear among the emotions dealt with and the restoration is once again to a
temperate mean. [8]
Is catharsis the only possible source of pleasure in tragedy? Humphry House does not think so. Those who are temperate in
themselves and do not require an adjustment of their emotional reactions to tragic situations, still derive pleasure from tragedy.
Even Plato in The Republictestifies to this fact: 'even the best of us enjoy it and let ourselves be carried away by our feelings;
and are full of praises for the merits of the poet who can most powerfully affect us in this way.' [9]. The pleasure arising out of
poetry is therefore not entirely dependent on catharsis. Instead, it works in two ways. In Book VII [section 11 - 14] Aristotle
discusses 'pure' pleasure and 'incidental' pleasure. The former is universal and is accompanied by no pain and is likened to
the pleasure arising out of contemplation. Those who experience this do so solely by contemplating and appraising the
imitation of human emotions in tragedy.
It is through this view that we bring our focus back on the last part of Aristotle's statement quoted above. Pleasure is effected
through imitation [or mimesis]. As Aristotle said [10] imitation is itself a pleasurable act. All of this applies to epic as well as
tragedy and can probably be extended to other types of poetry. The specifically 'tragic' pleasure is that pertaining to the
medium and the dramatic mode of tragedy. These constitute the specific imitative aspects of tragedy.
The idea of tragic pleasure therefore necessarily consists as Aristotle aptly puts it 'in that which comes with pity and fear
through imitation'. A heightened sense of pity and fear is effected when the necessary and probable events take an
unexpected turn. This is possible in the complex plot with the accompanying peripeteia and anagnorisis. Thus our examination
of the elements of the complex plot has led us to a consideration of pity and fear. These together with imitation [or mimesis]
help us understand the pleasure peculiar to tragedy.
Add a comment
Blog Archive
▼ 2013 (245)
▼ May (222)
THE MAHABHARATA as epic
Krishna IN MAHABHARAT
The Mahabharata-style, structure and narrative tec...
The Mahabharata-style, structure and narrative tec...
Mrichcchakatikam Q-The state of society in “Mrichc...
Q- The Prakarna or Plot in Mrichchhakatikam:
The character of Charudatta:-
Character of Vasantsena:-
Character of Samthanaka (Sakara).
Character of Maitreya:-
Humour in ”Mrichchhakatikam’
Sudraka’s Style:-
The title “Mrichchhakatikam”
A man of the people Theme/Political Satire
“A man of the people” Character of Nanga
The title A Man of the People
“A man of the people” (1966) Character of Odili Sa...
A House for Mr. Biswas (1961) As a Picaresque nove...
A Quest for Identity Or struggle for personality
Character of Mr. Mohun Biswas:-
Symbols/The Title " ‘A house for Mr. Biswas”
“A House for Mr. Biswas” Humour, Pathos and Irony...
Character of Mrs. Tulsi:
CHARACTER OF SHAMA
DEREK WALCOTT As a poet
Themes in Walcoott's work
Shame (1983) As Fantasy/ Historical Extravaganza/ ...
‘Shame’ Character of Omar Khayyam Shakil
‘Shame’ Narrative Technique in ‘Shame’ Or Non-fict...
‘Shame’ Character of Sufiya Zinobia
‘Shame’ The Title ‘Shame’
Shame (1983) As Fantasy/ Historical Extravaganza/ ...
Waiting for the Barbarians Theme / Moral
Waiting for the Barbarians Character of the Magist...
The Title Waiting for the Barbarians. [Short – Not...
Waiting for the Barbarians Character of Colonel Jo...
Waiting for the Barbarians Character of The Slave ...
The Tree of Man(1955) 1. Character of Stan Parker
The Tree of Man(1955)Theme
The Tree of Man(1955) Imagery/ Symbolism
The Tree of Man(1955) Character of Amy Parker
Introductory Lingustic
What is Linguistics?
What is a language? And what are its characteristi...
What is linguistics? Is linguistic a science ?
Q. Sub-Divisions of linguistics
Short note: Synchrony and Diachrony
Langue and Parole
Competence and Performance
Substance and Form
Syntagmatic and Paradigmatic
Semantics
General and Particular
The structural Treatment of Lexical Meaning
Semantic Field Theory/ Field Theory of Meaning
Q: Abstraction / Socio-Linguistics - AStudy of La...
Q: Abstraction / Socio-Linguistics - A Study of La...
Language Variation
Dialect:-
Idiolect:
Diglossia:-
Syntactic Relations
Tagmemics
Contribution of Noam Chomsky
The Origin and Devolvement of Language <!--[if !s...
v Discuss the kinds and causes of Language change
Ferdinand de Saussure ‘s Contributions
Linguistic communication
MEANING OF COMMUNICATION
Cycle of THE COMMUNICATION PROCESS
VERBAL COMMUNICATION
Psycholinguistics - A Study of Language
Psycholinguistics and Child Language Acquisition
Describe the origin of language.
The Descent of the English Language
The old English (Anglo Saxon) Period.
The Middle English Period.
Definition of Phonetics
History of Phonetics
History of Phonetics
Branches of Phonetics
Speech Mechanism Or Production of speech
The classification and description of speech sound...
The classification and description of speech sound...
The classification and description of speech sound...
The Syllable
The Word-Accent
Intonation
The Description and classification of Consonants
Description of Consonants
The Description and classification ofspeech of so...
The Description and classification of speech of so...
The Description and classification of speech of so...
“The Phoneme”
The vowels of English<!--[if gte vml 1]> ...
The vowels of English
The consonants of EnglishQ: - 1 Describe the cons...
The consonants of English
The consonants of English
The consonants of English
► June (23)
► 2014 (1)